This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[address-policy-wg] Policy Proposal : "Run Out Fairly"
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy Proposal : "Run Out Fairly"
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy Proposal : "Run Out Fairly"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Tomas Hlavacek
tomas.hlavacek at elfove.cz
Fri Apr 10 01:35:29 CEST 2009
Greetings! As I quickly read it I think it brings a fairness to the End. And it is good thing. But can you/somebody estimate what this would cost us in the matter of deaggregation and what it can cost NCC in the increase of request rate? I mean is it likely or at least possible, that when you shorten those periods from 1y to 1/2y and put in place the 50% usage in the half of the period criterion, then the increase of request rate (and therefore new routes in DFZ) will be not two-times but say ten-times more? In fact my concern is the same as in a section "Arguments Opposing the Proposal". My question is how much would we "pay" for the fairness? Best regards, Tomas Daniel Karrenberg wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > attached you will find a policy proposal we call "Run Out Fairly". <cut> > PS: Can we refer to this proposal by name and not by number? ;-) > -- Tomáš Hlaváček <tomas.hlavacek at elfove.cz>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy Proposal : "Run Out Fairly"
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy Proposal : "Run Out Fairly"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]